Agenda item

The Lead Councillor for Community and Organisational Development introduced the item and outlined the role of performance monitoring at the Council. 

The Policy Officer, Organisational Development, introduced the report submitted to the Committee.  She advised the meeting of the numbers of quarterly KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) within the report rated as red, amber, or green respectively and how many of the quarterly KPIs showed as no data available.  The Policy Officer, Organisational Development, stated that the KPIs were to be revised and improved for publication from quarter 1 of 2024/25. 

With reference to a question about the targets set for the Council’s KPIs and the value of comparing performance to peer authorities, the Executive Head of Organisational Development indicated that the Council’s benchmarking of targets against the performance of other local authorities could be improved and would be included in the upcoming work on the Council’s performance monitoring and management. 

In reply to a question on the differences between Guildford Council and Waverley Council in the reporting of performance to Overview and Scrutiny, the Executive Head of Organisational Development indicated that the review of performance monitoring would take place at both Councils 

With reference to household waste KPIs (ENV1 and ENV2) the lack of any target for the Borough and the identification and use of targets by other local authorities was questioned.  In reply, the Policy Officer, Organisational Development, confirmed that the query had been raised with the Executive Head of Environmental Services and the explanation would be circulated to Committee members. 

In response to a question on increase in the KPI for the number of homeless families in bed and breakfast (H&J5), the Policy Officer, Organisational Development, indicated that a review of the housing performance indicators was scheduled for discussion with the Interim Executive Head of Housing Services.  

With reference to the KPI for affordable new homes completed (H&J4), a Committee member questioned the lack of data for quarters 2 and 3.  In response, the Policy Officer, Organisational Development, advised that the gap was due in part to a staffing change and that from quarter 4 onwards the information would likely be provided by the planning service rather than by housing services.  A Councillor praised the breakdown of H&J4 into affordable rent, social rent, and shared ownership, as requested at a previous meeting of the Committee.

In reply to a question on the quarterly variations in the percentage of affordable housing units granted planning permission on eligible sites (H&J11), the Executive Head of Organisational Development indicated that the formatting of some KPIs could be re-assessed in the upcoming review.  The Policy Officer, Organisational Development, advised that the Executive Head of Regeneration and Planning Policy had indicated the quarterly figures were skewed by large developments that due to viability reasons had less than the forty percent target of affordable housing units.  The Chairman requested that the full explanation be shared with Committee members by email.

With reference to COM2 KPI (snapshot of rough sleepers), a member of the Committee requested additional information on the increase being attributed to neighbouring and nearby local authorities not helping rough sleepers beyond the legislative requirements.  In response, the Policy Officer, Organisational Development, advised that the Council was working with the HOST outreach and support service and that rough sleeper figures may reflect some individuals not wanting to participate with services.

In reply to a question, the Executive Head of Organisational Development noted that the performance monitoring reports at Guildford Council and Waverley Council could better link KPIs to corporate strategy outcomes.  He suggested commentaries from the Chief Executive Officer and the Section 151 Officer could be added to Guildford’s performance monitoring reports.

With reference to H&J12 (percentage of homes not meeting the Decent Homes Standard), the Chairman requested a target be added and that breakdowns of property types, social landlord, and ward location be included in future.  The Policy Officer, Organisational Development, confirmed the suggestion would be included as part of the upcoming review of performance monitoring reports. 

A member questioned the proposed doubling of the target time taken to assess new Housing Benefit claims (COU5) from eight days to sixteen.  In reply, the Committee was informed that further information from the Revenues and Benefits Manager included new claim processing statistics from the DWP and would be circulated to Committee members. 

In reply to a question from the Leader of the Council and Lead Councillor for Housing, the Executive Head of Organisational Development confirmed that the Executive would ultimately determine the target time for assessing new Housing Benefit claims.

The Chairman thanked officers and the Lead Councillor for Community and Organisational Development for attending.